There have been some interesting newspaper endorsements and interesting op-eds as well lately. Earlier this week, the New York Times offered its endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for president. That in itself is hardly a surprise; as the Times' sidebar demonstrates, the paper hasn't endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight D. Eisenhower. But what surprised me was how it essentially stated that McCain's campaign had virtually negated the decades of good work he had accomplished in Congress. As the editorial board wrote: "Senator John McCain of Arizona has retreated farther and farther to the fringe of American politics, running a campaign on partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism. His policies and worldview are mired in the past. His choice of a running mate so evidently unfit for the office was a final act of opportunism and bad judgment that eclipsed the accomplishments of 26 years in Congress.
"Mr. McCain offers more of the Republican every-man-for-himself ideology, now lying in shards on Wall Street and in Americans’ bank accounts. Mr. Obama has another vision of government’s role and responsibilities."
While I would never disrespect the service Sen. McCain has given to this country, both in the Navy and in Congress, I suspect McCain has allowed his campaign to be over-run with the conservatives who helped President Bush get elected twice to the highest office in our country.
I don't believe all Republicans are like Bush or even like McCain, who I suspect is conservative but also has many of the qualities that made the Republican party strong since the days of Abraham Lincoln. But NY Times columnist David Brooks, in his op-ed, offered a qualified endorsement of McCain: "McCain would be an outstanding president. In government, he has almost always had an instinct for the right cause. He has become an experienced legislative craftsman. He is stalwart against the country’s foes and cooperative with its friends. But he never escaped the straitjacket of a party that is ailing and a conservatism that is behind the times. And that’s what makes the final weeks of this campaign so unspeakably sad."
I find it hard to disagree with Brooks. As someone who tends to vote Democratic, the only Republican candidate I thought could defeat a Democrat this year was McCain.
But there have been other interesting endorsements recently. For the first time ever, the Chicago Tribune endorsed a Democrat. This is a publication that chose Eisenhower over Illinois' own Adlai E. Stevenson — twice. So its endorsement of Obama isn't about him being a favorite son of Illinois.
The endorsement that really caught my eye, however, was the Anchorage Daily News. That's the largest circulation newspaper in Alaska, best known these days as the home state of Tina Fey impersonator Gov. Sarah Palin. They, too, have endorsed Obama. The Daily News's editorial board wrote: "Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency — but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and down, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation." It added: "Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time."
Of course, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who served in that role during George W. Bush's first term as president, also provided a stunning endorsement of Sen. Obama. And lately the wheels seem to be falling off for the McCain campaign.
Personally, I think all these endorsements have one thing in common other than the person they selected; they all suggest — in between the lines if not directly — that the Republican party is due for a major reassessment of who and what it represents. The party is splitting. (Added on 10/27: I found the final line of this brilliant piece of fiction quite illuminating.) Moderates and conservatives have less in common than they once did. If Sarah Palin is a serious candidate for president in 2012, I think it will be an indication that the party is still reeling and trying to find its unifying message.
But first things first. There are less than 10 days before the election. I'm excited for the future, because I believe Barack Obama can change our country's direction to a positive route.
3 comments:
this seems to be the topic on everybodies blog lately
Thanks for your comment, social reformer.
I suppose what you say is true. I hadn't looked at other blog posts on this topic, but I'd imagine that with the election so close, these endorsements have caught people's attention. Personally, I don't think they influence most people's vote. But I do appreciate it when newspapers -- which are expected to at least aspire to journalistic objectivity -- offer a sensible and even unexpected analysis of candidates and what they offer all of us.
I recommend reading Atlas Shrugged and then discuss with your friends how a vote for John Galt = a vote for John McCain
Post a Comment